@Christophe Noualhat
Yes, you can get it permitted but you'll need an county inspector to come out and look at it. This process is often long, costly and in general a pain. Keep in mind that these county inspectors interact heavily with other county inspectors and will communicate possible other code violations the property may have to their co-workers who will then pay you a visit. It's not a bad route to go if you were here and saw exactly what needed to be done and could adjust the price accordingly. If you could see it with your own eyes you can reason that maybe the owner just messed up in this area and nothing else. Since you are in Madagascar this is difficult. You are relying on an agent who most likely is not specialized in building codes and steps needed for permitting to give you sage and accurate advice about what needs to be done.
I'm not sure what you mean when you said "can the sale be attached to the presentation of a permit by an owner means?" but I think what you are asking is can proof of permitting be a stipulation for a successful sale. If that is your question then the answer is yes. You can ask for almost anything. Whether you'll get it or not is another matter. Even if you went that route and they agreed and supplied the permitting documentation you still may be in trouble as you only specified permitting and remediation proof for the split. When the county inspector comes in they may find stuff not within the domain of their tasks but will still communicate that to their buddies. You don't want these other violations pending, be ignorant of them and think everything is great because the seller provided everything exactly as you asked.
If it's worth the hassle is a subjective question. I can answer a resounding no if i were in your situation. I'd have to see it personally and understand exactly what I am getting into. Everyone is different though and your risk tolerance and patience may be different than mine.
I'd contact the permitting department and explain your situation and see what they have to say about it. I imagine it will be something you've already heard but who knows? Doesn't hurt to try. Here's a link to them:
http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/index.aspx?NID=1...
You can still have a private home inspection done irrespective of whether something was permitted or not. They are a private company and are not restricted access or kept from doing an inspection from the government unless the house is under some sort of government claim such as eminent domain, crime scene investigation or condemned. If you were referring to an inspection by the government then they will also come in even if there is an issue with something not being permitting. In fact they are compelled to do so.
It's common and expected to be able to have access to every unit when dealing with multifamily that is 2-4 units. No clause should have to be explicitly created to allow you access during the physical due diligence portion of the due diligence period. I would try to schedule it with the owner so they could all be done on the same day. This disrupts the residents less and makes it less expensive for you. To help facilitate getting your way with this I'd offer to give the seller a copy of the report once it was done. That way if your deal doesn't go through they'll have a better idea of what needs to be done for free. It also allows them to contest future reports erroneous information. Pointing these benefits out with often get the seller to capitulate to your terms within this specific area.
I'd definitely do your financial due diligence first. Ask for copies of the lease and a rent roll. verify that rents are going for X in that area. If yours are higher how is the seller getting extra?
Do your legal due diligence next. Clouds on title?, zoning and permit compliant, construction liens or other liens on the property?
Then physical due diligence. You may not even get to this point. I'd suggest doing it in this order as it's a bummer to pay for an inspector ~$300 just to find out the project isn't viable because of other issues in the financial or legal areas.
The value of .35 comes from the ratio (in this case) of rented households / owner occupied households. Ideally you want .25-.3. This indicates that a balance has been struck between the jobs that create other jobs through a multiplier effect and jobs that do not or if they do the multiple is low and indicates a stable economy and hence a stable housing area.
Doctors, Engineers, Business owners, etc. have multiples of anywhere from 5-20 on a first level tier. This means that they create direct demand for this many jobs in a local economy. They need a tailor, mechanic, grocer, fast food restaurants, malls, etc... These individuals are owner occupants 95% of the time. So for easy math I round it up to 100%.
The folks who work in the mall create fewer jobs from the simple fact that they don't have as much disposable income. Their multiples usually start somewhere between 0 and 1 and range up to maybe 5 on a good day. These are typically your renters.
If an area has 3.5 renters for every 6.5 owner occupants (or 3.5 renters for every 10 people) it's approaching an unsustainable level unless the O.O. are extremely affluent and their multiples are closer to 20. Most of the time this is not the case and a good rule of thumb is having a ratio that ranges from .25-.30. If your ratio is lower than that you might be looking at an area where there may be demand for more rentals assuming other metrics are able to be checked off. having an area where the value is .35 means you have a lot of folks with low multiples and few folks with higher multiples. This creates a precarious situation where employment is tenuous or it could also be that employment is fine and plenty of it within a short driving distance but if the majority of your population are renting it's fair to say that they are transient and most likely do not have any vested interest in the community or general appearance. Investing in such an area seems to be antithetical to trying to capture capital appreciation. I know that is not a primary driver behind the renting model but if you're in a boat why not have the wind at your back instead of against you?
